Where does design inspiration come from? In the case of Harley Earl, GM’s legendary design chief from 1927 through 1958, after WW2 it most often came from aviation. The jet age had arrived, starting with military jet fighters, the icons of those upward-looking times. Earl became the leading exponent in transposing their powerful imagery of wings, tails, air intakes, afterburners and plexiglass canopies unto the family chariot. Most of those features were gone or muted for the slimmed-down, cleaned-up 1961 GM cars, the last ones designed under Earl’s watch, but his beloved bubbletop still crowned them, for the last time. It was the end of an era, in more ways than one.

image: pinterest.com

The Lockheed P-38 Lightning’s twin tails were the inspiration for the 1948 Cadillac’s fins, the first of their kind to grace a production automobile. Small as they were, they were the beginning of something big that soon became the dominant design theme during the fifties, culminating in the final blowout on the ’59 Cadillac. This unattributed rendering with the P-38 also shows a number of advanced Cadillac design concepts, which in addition to their fins also show other aeronautical influence, especially in their greenhouses, literally. Perhaps that’s the origin of the term, as Earl and his designers sought to bring the dubious virtues of the plexiglass fighter bubble canopy to mainstream cars.

GM’s 1949 C-Bodies were the first regular production two-door hardtops, like this Buick Roadmaster Riviera. At this point, there wasn’t all that much much “bubble” in it yet, although the three-piece wraparound rear window was a good start.

By 1951, the glass-to-steel ratio had increased significantly, as seen on this Buick. The bubble was coming into its own.

From 1955 -1957, it was GM’s smaller B-bodies that carried the next evolution of Earl’s bubble proudly, as the C-Bodies explored some other hardtop design themes. In 1958, all the GM cars took a bubble break. But then 1958 was hardly a stellar year for GM design.

But Earl’s love for the bubble was not yet fully realized. His series of Firebirds were the ultimate expression of putting a jet fighter on the streets of America, and were even turbine powered. Sadly, there were no actual afterburners, although sun burns were standard equipment. All the Harrison GM air conditioning in the world couldn’t have made these a comfortable place to be in the Arizona summer sun.

The quest for the one true bubble wasn’t just limited to the Firebirds, which were obviously pretty far out there. The 1956 Buick Centurion XP-301 envisioned the whole family sitting frying under plexiglass.

Hopefully always within near proximity to a cool swimming pool. What a contrast to the heavily-enclosed small-windowed Brougham coupes soon to come. I seems that America didn’t really want to ride in a bubble after all. But that was still some years off.

In the meantime, GM’s radical 1959 cars like this Buick gave Earl’s beloved bubble, fins, afterburners and other aircraft-inspired design accoutrements a fitting blow-out. Strictly speaking, Earl didn’t actually instigate these ’59s, as they were started while he was on his annual Europe trip in the summer of 1956, in response to the design team spotting some radical pre-production ’57 Chryslers in a storage lot. It was a bit of a palace revolt, but Earl quickly bought in, and nurtured them to completion. And perhaps in a nod to the Big Man, they really are the ultimate expression of his jet-age sensibilities.

After the admitted excesses of the finned ’59-’60 cars, GM went on a crash diet for the new 1961s. The all shed inches in length (although not by the means that this one did), width, and typically lost some 200 lbs. This Lesabre is five inches shorter than a 1960. They weren’t truly downsized, as often has been said of them, as they still rode on the same wheelbases as before (123″), and interior space was actually improved, thanks to revisions in the frames and taller roofs. Yes, the ’61 bubble had been inflated a bit upwards, to improve headroom. Heresy. And it does make the rest of the car look smaller.

The 1961 Buicks were substantially revised under their bodies too, with the biggest change being a new rear suspension that ditched the torque tube, a feature seen on every Buick since 1907. Interestingly, Buick used a single large transverse rear muffler, which meant there were no dual exhausts to be had. Buick ditched the perimeter frame they used in ’59-’60, and switched to its variation of GM’s X-Frame that used heavily reinforced sill in the body to compensate for the lack of side rails.

Buick’s “Nailhead” V8s were on tap to feed Buick’s exclusive Turbine Drive automatic, which afforded hydraulic “downshifts”, thanks to a variable-pitch stator in the torque convertor, without any abrupt mechanical gear change. The LeSabre used a 364 cubic inch version; a 250 hp unit with high compression but two barrel carb was standard; a low compression 235 hp economy version was optional, as was the 300hp four-barrel version. The Invicta and Electra came standard with the larger 401 cubic inch block, with 325 hp. But let’s get back to what’s on the surface.

A common mistake, one that I’ve made myself in the past, is to attribute these lighter and cleaner ’61 GM cars to Bill Mitchell’s direction. Earl didn’t retire as VP of Design until December of 1958, when he hit the mandatory retirement age of 65. The design work on the ’61 models was by then well under way, and Earl still oversaw it, and provided direction, although undoubtedly Bill Mitchell’s influence was on the rise.

Earl made some key decisions on the ’61, such as not eliminating the fins on the Cadillac. He specifically fussed over the replacement design for the panoramic “wraparound” windshield, with its awkward ”dog leg”, that had been such a trademark of his late-fifties designs.

This problem was first resolved for the 1959 Eldorado Brougham, which foreshadowed future GM design directions thanks to its hand-made body by Pininfarina, which allowed shorter lead times. Here’s how the process is described in this write-up of the ’61 Cadillac design process. (howstuffworks,com):

“We wanted something new,” recalls Holls, “but couldn’t get anything that satisfied Earl until we did the Brougham windshield. He told us, ‘You can’t just end it at the bottom of the pillar. You’ve got to something different. Do a little circle do something else there.’

“He didn’t want the windshield to look like Chrysler’s or anybody else’s. He wanted that little curve, that switchback where it went into the belt; that was Mr. Earl’s touch. The Brougham also had a 60-degree rake to the glass, which was very fast for that time. And then when we finally got that windshield right, he said, ‘Oh my God that’s more beautiful than the wraparound!'”

The result was very pleasing, and the 1960 Corvair was the first regular production car to use it. It was one of the many design details that were part of this major transition from the Earl Era to the Mitchell Era.

Which didn’t really begin until 1963, and was reflected most fully in the ’63 Buick Riviera. Mitchell was not inspired by airplanes; he drew much of his inspiration from classic European cars as well as the deep ocean, for his shark-inspired Corvettes.

Undoubtedly, the loss of the bubble on all of the 1962 hardtops (except for the ’62 Bel Air) in favor of the formal coupe roof was the first major step in that (Mitchell) direction, as well as a further clean up that ditched the last vestiges of flight-simulation. And there’s no question that the changes, subtle as they are, make the ’62’s look decidedly more earthbound than the ’61s. Which is a bit ironic, as the space age was rally just getting under way. Frankly, the ’62 is a duller car in almost every way, the victim of a change in leadership and design inspirations.

This Mitchell-led purge of Earl jet-age paraphernalia was particularly obvious in places like the ’62 Buick’s rear end.

At the end of that long flat deck, some very Earl-esque details were still very much on display on the ’61.

I suppose it’s debatable if these flamboyant hooded tail lights are jet-inspired or not. But they clearly seem to belong to the Earl era.

Earl had a long tradition of being particularly closely associated with Buick, and used Buicks for most of his signature show cars, like the ur-dream car Y-Job, as well as its spiritual successor, the 1951 LeSabre. And it all ended here, literally.

We arrived in the US just weeks before the 1961 GM cars came out. And I was smitten, to say the least. The walls in my bedroom were soon covered with 1961 ads and brochure pictures, although I don’t remember this particular one. Is it the cliffs above Black’s Beach in La Jolla? I rather favored the Pontiac over the Olds and Buick, but was an equal opportunity GM lover at the time. Chrysler was in a very strange place at the time, and the Fords were just stodgy, except for the T-Bird.

Finding this very original ’61 Le Sabre in a bank parking lot the other day was highly gratifying. I’ve always wanted to write up the ’61 GM cars, as they left such a deep impression on my young mind. And it being a white Buick hardtop was icing on the cake.

In the summer of 1961 we were on vacation in the Rockies, in our pudgy old ’54 Ford. On a climb of the Twin Sisters, we met some other German-speakers, a Jewish couple that had fled in 1939. They were childless; he was a dentist and she was an artist. And when we got to the parking lot, what did they head towards? A gleaming white ’61 Buick hardtop, an Invicta, if I remember correctly. I had the thought “maybe not having children was the key to driving something like this”.

Probably largely true, as we would have broiled in the back seat of one of these, driving two days across Iowa and Nebraska in the summer sun, with the windows closed except for a tiny crack, as my father was draftophobic . Without air conditioning, obviously. But the vistas of the Rockies would have been unparalleled, except in a convertible.

No, this was just about the ultimate Not-Niedermeyermobile, what with its husky big V8. And no three-on-the trees here; Buick graced every full-sized car with its automatic as standard equipment, at least through 1962.

I tried to get a decent shot of the “Mirrormagic” instrument cluster. The gauges are all reflected on an adjustable mirror; the adjusting wheel is barely visible on its right side.

Here’s a cleaner shot, with the adjustment wheel quite visible.

For good measure, here’s a shot of the Mirrormagic unit itself.

Frankly, the ’62 Buick front end is also pretty dull compared to the ’61. There’s even a final appearance of a Earl’s beloved Dagmar bumper to complement the spear-shaped fender blade, although it has noticeably shrunk since its heyday; a B cup instead of a DD. Come to think of it, maybe airplanes weren’t the only design inspiration Earl drew on.

And this badge alone deserves a moment to savor it. Note how the sweep on the bottom of the “S” reflects the sweep of that chrome trim below it.

Although toned down from Buick’s wild ’59 grille, this one does portend the styling direction Buick front ends would take over the next few years. Solid, with a touch of understated style. Not terribly inspired, though, but less confused than the ’61 Olds, in any case.

This car has had an unfortunate run in with a solid object, which looks to have been some time ago.

What’s a bit odd is that I found this Buick sitting in the same exact bank parking spot as where I found one of my other more unusual finds, a 1976 Dodge Royal Monaco, almost five years ago. And it was in somewhat similar original condition, with plenty of patina. Same owner?

This one is working up some nice patterns and colors, especially on its long, flat sweeping rear deck.

The oft-touched and stressed area area around the gas filler door shows the affects of over a half century of fill-ups.

The lichen seems to be feeding on the decaying rubber.

But stepping back a bit, all the magic of GM’s 1961 cars is still intact especially on this side. Harley Earl’s last few years at the helm must have been challenging ones, as his powers and influence were waning, trying to adapt to the changing demands and tastes of the times. But then Mitchell went through similar challenges at the end of his career, having to downsize cars for a new era too.

composite image by Dan Moran

But Earls’ bubble, which in ’61 was a bit too tall and about to burst, enjoyed a final outing, a fitting tribute to the man who essentially created the modern design studio and brought the jet age into America’s garages.

91 Comments

Gorgeous,I love the bubble tops I don’t care about it’s huge size or mighty thirst .Why buy a Cadillac when you could have a Buick?The 61s were showing the last of the 50s styling cues but still looked modern in contrast to the awkward looking Mopar opposition. The 59 Electra coupe was the car that got my brother and myself interested in American cars when we saw a red one from the USAF base near our Grandparents being driven by an Airman(or more likely an Officer) in the early 60s.
The P38 Lightning was America’s most beautiful twin engined warplane,some were supplied to Britain but never used presumably because the Mosquito and Beaufighter were already a success.
Thanks for another great read Paul

The Brits didn’t get the superchargers for the engines on the P-38s sent to them, and their performance suffered greatly. If I recall, something about the superchargers and their metallurgy falling into enemy hands if one was downed over enemy territory.

The Allison engine suffered reliability problems through the end of the war – it was a common occurrence to come back with one engine out, and a number of pilots were killed due to engine out on takeoff situations. The procedure for when this happened was to do a 360* roll *into* the dead engine side, which took huge brass ones to pull off successfully.

In fact, the Allison V-1710 did have a supercharger but it was a single speed unit that was optimised for medium to low altitudes. All the domestic engines got turbochargers, and it was new technology at the time. Thus, it didn’t get into export models. There were also production capacity problems.

The British P-38’s indeed did not have handed props, making them very hard to take off and land.

The R-2800 also used a supercharger and turbo in conjunction, on both the B-17 and P-47, among others.

According to Warren Bodie, RAF-spec Lightnings lacked turbos & opposite-turning props because of logistics: they wanted the same engine type as with the P-39 & -40. Lockheed strongly objected, but the Customer is Always Right.

The prop direction was easy to change, I think in the gearbox. Brits also had the Westland Whirlwind (unsuccessful because of its engines), but it filled a different tactical niche, like the Beaufighter (which was protected by Lightnings during the Battle of Bismarck Sea). The Mosquito was in development when the Lightning was procured, & it too had a different envelope, climbed poorly, & couldn’t handle high-G turns, either.

Though I’m a P-38 fan, its complexity & expense were probably its biggest flaws, as even Kelly Johnson admitted.

Now you know why I rarely play the clue game – I’m never right! Beautiful car, though. I never was around these much, and didn’t realize they were that fancy, but I like all the styling detail. One could only imagine this brand-new and how sharp it must have been!

Wow, that’s a lot to take in. It’s almost bittersweet hearing about the whole design process, as things became much more corporate a decade later. Designers had so much freedom and could really do anything they wanted. No controlling accountants to penny-pinch every detail. But I digress.

This is a great original you found Paul. I do like the airy bubble-top, although I can’t say that I dislike the more formal look of its successor. Their designs both appeal to different sides of me.

Growing up in the 1960’s my friend’s Dad was a confirmed Buick man and he had one of these , he bought one or two years old and kept them for 4 years , not sure how he managed this working @ Kinney Pump in Boston but the cars were very nice , my Family never had GM Products .

The ’59 to ’61/2 GM bubble tops are some of their best designs ever. I passed on a ’60 Biscayne two-door sedan (kinda like a pillard bubble top) in college, and I still kick myself. Too bad you couldn’t get an Invicta with a four-speed in ’61, it would have been fascinating seeing those tearing up the dragstrips against 390 Fords, 348 Chevys, and 413 MoPars.

Put me down as a fan of the ’61 bubbletops, too. The only exception would be the Oldsmobile which had the most egregious example of those weird, reverse fins sprouting from the ‘bottom’ of the rear quarter panels. They were worse than even Cadillac, probably because Cadillac still hung onto the fins on top of the quarter panels so the lower fins weren’t that huge. It was like the Olds’ styling department simply couldn’t give up the rear fins and tried to hide them down below.

But the bubbletops from all the other GM divisions were otherwise superbly styled and some my favorite GM full-size cars.

I remain a fan of the 61 Olds, but maybe its just fond childhood memories of my Uncle Bob’s. A white 2 door hardtop with red interior, it served as the family’s only car from new until the Roto Hydramatic started to give up in 1967.

I always thought that the bigger problem with the 1961 Oldsmobile was the grille. The grille itself sloped backwards from the hood, giving the impression of a man with his teeth knocked back by a punch.

Yeah, besides the god-awful lower quarter panel fins, the front end of the ’61 Olds wasn’t exactly a trend-setter, either, although it, along with the Rambler, may have influenced the stop-gap (and quite plain) Dodge Custom 880 which was created out of desperation due to Chrysler’s 1962 down-sizing debacle.

Aside from the bubble-top that all divisions got, the ’61 Olds full-size line (the intermediate Starfire was just fine) doesn’t come off as one of their better styling efforts.

I want to like that ’62 Starfire, but can’t properly, as it has way too much chrome/bright metal slathered on it. Reminds me way too much of the ’58s. It’s like they made a tribute to Earl with it. Too bad.

The ’62 GP was much cleaner, and better for it.

Dave B

Posted June 18, 2014 at 12:59 PM

The early Starfire trim seemed stuck in the ’50s on a ’60s body. I’ve admired the ’65 Starfire convertible on this cover for years. The ’65 and ’66 coupes had a unique roofline and were very handsome, but the Toronado brought it to an abrupt end.

A great dive into the design history on these cars, that will clear up a lot of misconceptions. The last time a 61 Buick was seen here, the CC effect put another in the parking lot of my own bank. Don’t have access to the picture today, but it was a 2 door sedan like the one below. The pillared sedan very much continues the bubble theme – which really breathed its last in these 1961 GM cars. Someone was speaking the other day of 1 year bodies, and this would be another.

From the time I was a kid, I was in love with that 1961-62 GM windshield, with it’s odd teardrop-shaped vent window. This touch and so many others on the car are fascinating to just sit and stare at for awhile.

It is interesting that the transition from Earl to Mitchell led to a massive cleaning-up of the cars. The clean look was beautiful, but we started to lose some of those individually interesting details. The process continued as the sheer look took over in the 70s, and now we are left with so many cars that have hardly an interesting detail to photograph.

Terrific article, especially with the explanation of the bubble top history.

Stepping out on a limb here, but I can’t help but conclude that GM had been dipping its toe into the bubble top design pond in their other venues, such as the very limited Aerotrain. For me, the resemblance is uncanny.

The Aerotrain was very much a road vehicle design exercise. The passenger cars were basically GM buses on steel wheels. Apparently they rode really badly, which is part of why the whole program was a dead end.

Guess it would make sense – given the longer lead times in those days – that the ’61s would’ve been well on their way by the end of ’58. I’d always attributed them exclusively to Bill Mitchell.

In 1969, at the age of 12, I crossed the road on my bicycle…directly in front of a ’61 Buick. I rode that hood spear before coming to rest on the road as the driver panic-stopped. No broken bones…just a scar on my backside.

Great writeup–love the details on things like the shape of the A-pillar. And, what a fantastic car. The ’61 Buick is one of my favorite GM shapes of the decade–the point of the front fenders, the graceful lines of the entire car, and the rear panel…wow. The compound curves of that bumper, the highlly detailed lamps, the model scripts–one of the most interesting and attractive rear panels ever attached to a car, in my opinion. Plus the elegant way the lines of the bubble top complement the lines of the car–gives a strong sense of motion while standing still. Near perfect. (For comparison, look at the 2-door post above. Still quite an attractive car but the more formal pillared roofline pales in comparison to the graceful hardtop.)

This is a great find. Shame about the accident damage, but the car appears to otherwise be very solid and complete. It really deserves a new fender and bumper, minor bodywork restoration and a repaint.

While I like the lines on the ’61, I love the ’59 Buicks (as well as most ’59 GM cars). I agree that Buick lost something with its more conservative styling and formal roofs for ’62.

I have to disagree with you. I love all of the eye candy on the 61, but the overall shape of the 62 is better. There has always been something about that bubble roof on the 61 that never quite looked right to me. It is highly dependent on viewing angle as to whether it looks decent or a little awkward. I think that the 60-62 Chrysler hardtop roof looked a bit better (also used on the Dodge 880 thru 64) than these, but the blind C pillar look really dressed these cars up.

I agree that the overall shape of the 1962 Buick is better than its predecessor, but the details are a letdown. The front of the 1962 Buick, with its jutting headlights that do not have hoods over them, is especially weak.

Overall, in a comparison of the 1962 GM full-size cars to their 1961 counterparts, I’d rate the Oldsmobiles and Cadillacs as definite improvements for 1962, with the Pontiacs and Buicks as a draw and the Chevrolet as a step backwards. The 1961 Chevrolet was the easily best-looking one until the 1965 version.

I personally prefer the 62. Adjectives like handsome and restrained seem to apply more to this one. Of course this was when planned obsolescence was in full swing. The new model had to make the owners of older ones see their cars as out of date, not stylish, etc. That’s why we had so many jumps in style from year to year with no apparent reason.

The ’61 bubble roof was raised for more headroom, as folks had complained about the ’59-’60 bubbletops. That does hurt it, especially in full profile. It makes the rest of the car look disproportionately smaller.

Obviously, its time had come and gone. And if Earl had retired a year sooner, I’m quite sure we’d not have seen the bubble on the ’61s.

I wonder if GM also raised the seats on the 1961 models. One of the big complaints about the 1959 and 1960 full-size cars was that the seats were mounted very low, and gave people the feeling that they were almost sitting on the floor.

Good article. These cars are charming but not quite up to the standards of Mr. Earl’s earlier work.

I like the pointy front fenders from the side, but seeing them along with the headlights and grille, they really seem like they were meant for another car. I can picture Mitchell watching these idiosyncratic designs come to market, wishing he could take an eraser to many of the details.

I agree completely. The disconnect between the pointed fenders and the flat grille on these cars has always been my one beef with them. They did such a good job of integrating the notch in the back across the entire rear of the car, why couldn’t they do something more with the front?

I never noticed until now how they added small bumperettes to the rear bumper, presumably so that you couldn’t accidentally smash the taillight when loading things in the trunk.

This era is sort of a miss-mash of both Earl and Mitchell influences, since neither really “styled” a car by this point in their careers, their underlings did, and then they, as potent potentates of the Styling Dept or Art and Colour as Earl liked to call it, would give a thumbs up or thumbs down on what they liked and didn’t like.

That artwork with the P38 is very cool, although it does look as if the P38 is about to crash into the parking lot of futuristic cars.

The “Mirror-Magic” dash is cool, its sort of like a primitive heads up display. These were very nice cars, and not that expensive to pick up today since they are largely overlooked by the BJ “426hemichevelle454ss urrrrgghhh murrica” crowd.

Yeah, it seems like with just a little tweaking, Mirror-Magic could have easily been converted to HUD, if only for use at night. Something along the lines of when the headlights were turned on, the mirror panel slid away so that the image was projected directly onto the windshield. That would have been quite impressive in 1961.

The 1961 restyle of the wacky 50’s cars were one of GM’s “Greatest HIts” in my book. They made Plymouth/Dodge look dated and ugly, and Fords frumpy. Was the first true ‘downsizing’ that could be called “…more like it”, as 1977.

I did like the 1961 Ford Starliner and Sunliner convertible, along with the Ford station wagons. They were very sharp, in my opinion, and a huge improvement over the 1960 Ford.

The real problem at Ford was that the 1961 Mercury went back to sharing the Ford body, and parked next to a 1961 Pontiac, it did look frumpy. Particularly since there wasn’t a Mercury equivalent to the Starliner.

Great retrospective on a memorable design and a genuinely excellent car. My parents purchased the first new 1961 Buick delivered in my hometown (Oct. 7, 1960). I was seven years old, but loved that car and the design of the ’61’s. Sadly, I’ve never owned one as an adult, but am thankful for friends who are fortunate to own excellent examples that I am able to enjoy. An interesting variant of the final bubble top appeared only on the senior series GM cars, as seen here on my friend’s ’61 Electra 2-door hardtop. You can click the image to enlarge.

Thanks for pointing that out; I meant to but forgot. As a kid, seeing one of the C-Body bubbles was a special treat, as they were not that common. The Cadillac was probably the most common of the three. If I had to guess, there’s some definite Mitchell influence in that version of it, with its straight lines and delicate crease.

Since one of the comments above refers to the “flying wing” 4-door hardtop roofline that appeared throughout the GM lines in 1959/1960, I’m reminded of yet another favorite body style offered only on the senior 1961 GM lines. My favorite is, again, Buick’s Electra, and here’s the seldom-seen 4-door hardtop version with the wrap-around rear window and “flying wing” roofline. This beautiful design was far less popular than the more conventional-appearing 6-window 4-door hardtop style. (Click to enlarge photo.)

Yes, another fairly uncommon version in its time. FWIW, the GM designers were not very happy about how this one came out; raising the roof threw off the proportions. The designers were much happier with the six-window version.

I always thought the ’64 Falcon aped the front end of these. 1961 GM styling successfully melded the 50’s excesses with the 60’s. For me Pontiac did it best in ’61 followed by Chevy and Buick. Really the end of wide whitewalls too.

Just this week, I met a ’61 LeSabre bubble top in traffic here in Tacoma. Here’s the car, which had been offered for sale in the md-west, but is now owned by a local collector. The two-tone paint treatment looks great on this car.

For the 1961 GM full-size cars, after Pontiac, I always liked the Chevy bubble-top second best (409 and all, you know) but after looking at that clean Invicta Custom, I might have to move the Buick up a notch.

Another “everything you wanted to know about 1961 Buick LeSabre hardtops…but were afraid to ask” detailed and well researched article from Paul. The look of these as really grown on me now. The amount of detail work that went into the styling of these cars is amazing. And they were able to do so many changes from year to year back then. Now I can see the mix of influences that were in this design. Too bad we will never be able to have such freedom to buy cars that really are restyled from year to year with so much freedom the stylists had back then. Thanks for the continuing CC education.

I have always loved the bubbletop cars, and had never really thought through their place in the transition from Earl to Mitchell at GM. Brilliant analysis there. By comparison, the convertible shaped 1962+ versions of the same cars always seemed childish to me…and like a foreshadowing of the “brougham” tendency to dissemble, or simulate, in automotive styling.

I’d never seen a Buick in this style, ever. To me, the shaping of the front fenders, and the plain detailing on the sides, makes this even better than the bubbletop Impala, which means pretty good indeed…

I agree on the ’62-up hardtops. One of the things that made the ’63 Grand Prix (and 4-door hardtop regular Pontiacs) was the lack of a “bow” in the roof pressing. On the non-GP 2 door hardtop it looks especially trite because it’s the only bad line on the car.

An earlier post on this site shows the ’63 Olds Starfire with the same improved, bow-free roof. The Starfire shared wheelbase measurements with the 88, so I suppose it was a B-body like the Grand Prix.

’61 and ’62 cars were mostly faded away when my automotive memories start. I’m fairly certain my grandfather traded a white ’62 LeSabre sedan on his new ’67 Caprice. He was always a mid-price guy before that, the Sloan ladder was shaking.

In retrospect, ’58 through ’60 were some crazy, sometimes very weird, years for automotive styling. The ’61 Continental was truly the way forward, but GM was the first maker to move the bulk of its cars the right way for the ’60s beginning with ’61. The Olds was a bit odd, and I’m not a big fan of the Pontiac, but Chevy nailed it and Buick also put out a unique (in a good way) product. GM’s ’62s really started nailing the ’60s groove in a big way and let GM dominate the next several years with little trouble.

I’d be very happy with either a ’61 or ’62 LeSabre two door hardtop in my driveway. An Invicta would be just a notch cooler yet.

The P-38 double vertical stabilizer design came from its ancestor, the ’30s Electra, & continued into the triple-tail Constellation (which had the same main wings too, scaled up). Ironically, the ’38 was obsolescent by the time the Caddy was styled; the faster (but perhaps less well-known) Twin Mustang was a bit more up-to-date.

Boeing & Douglas also had characteristic vertical stabilizers, up to the Jet Age.

The 61 Electra 225 “Six window” Riveria was my favorite all time car for styling as well as engineering . The improvements made to the Twin Turbine Dynaflow included. To think I could have had one but we chose the 63 LeSabre right next to it on the Buick dealer used car lot. We still have. the 63 for close to 42 years

Great story and research, loved it. I always have to put in a word for my aunt’s 1961 Olds Dynamic 88 bubbletop. She bought it new in October 1960 about a month after her ’59 Chevy Bel Air sedan was stolen and totaled in Wildwood, NJ. The ’60 Olds was too long to fit in the 1932-era garage, but the slightly downsized ’61 just made it! She kept it long enough for me to drive it when I got my license late in the decade.

Now I finally know the backstory of not just the bubble, but also that wonderfully curved A-pillar and vestigial wraparound windshield. Thank you! I’d love to see a design element like that today to eliminate those fixed triangular front quarter windows on so many vehicles.

A family friend bought a ’61 Le Sabre for her first new, and sadly last car. She ordered it just the way she wanted to on her claimed 60th birthday. It came a few months later, and everyone was shocked when they saw it, it was an awful beige, probably the worst color I have ever seen on a car. It was loaded, I think it had the biggest engine you could get in it, she did a nice burnout in it one day, and was having a great time with it, she really loved it. She had it almost 7 years to the day from when she picked it up. She had said that she didn’t feel very well the night before, but didn’t indicate it was any big deal. She was one of those people who didn’t sleep much and got up at 5am and would usually go to her sister in laws to start cooking some sort of Middle Eastern food she was known for.. Her son went out the door at 8am to go to work and found her dead in the driver’s seat, her keys in her hand. The “not feeling too well” turned out to be the beginnings of a massive fatal heart attack. The biggest shock came when we read her obit and found out she wasn’t born in Syria, she was born in (Where else?)Palestine Texas, and was actually almost 73 years old. The Buick became the oldest granddaughter’s first car and she had it until the early 70’s when it was so rusted she put her feet through the floor, and off it went to the scrapper.Her little girl was thrilled when the replacement Cutlass was red and not that “skin color”, like the last one.

Count me in as another fan of both the bubbletop and that wonderfully graceful windshield and teardrop-shaped vent window. I wish GM had stuck with it through the 64s.

I’ve always thought Chevrolet did a brilliant job of maintaining brand continuity, even with an all new design in the ’61 Impala, particularly in the back with the signature triple taillights and a shape that mimicked the 1960’s gull-wing fins, but without the fins themselves.

The Buick comes in at a close second; the details on this car are really impressive, especially the hooded taillights and LeSabre script.

Hi gary my name is chuck . I just purchased the white bubble top in this article i live in grants pass oregon. it is going to get a full proper restoration .I HAVE BEEN A BODY MAN FOR OVER 35 YEARS . AND A BUICK NUT ALSO. THIS BUICK WAS IN EUGENE OREGON . I HAVE ALWAYS WANTED ONE .I PUT A NOTE ON THIS BUICK OVER 15 YEARS AGO , AT THE GATEWAY MALL, BUT NO RESPONSE , AND IT CAME UP ON CREGS LIST ON APRIL 4/ 2015 THERE WAS ONLY ONE PICTURE OF IT FROM RIGHT SIDE .BUT I KNEW I T WAS THE SAME CAR , I WAS LUCKY TO GET IT FOR 4 K TAKE CARE . CHUCK

Slightly off topic, it’s interesting how the chrome trim on the side windows of the ’48 Cadillac sedan in the pinterest image is perimeter trim only – the B pillar is painted – accentuating the length of the car.

My father was a Chevy engineer @ the g. m. tech center in Warren Mich. No, he wasn’t a car guy who brought home exotic g.m. stuff, but he had friends who did. Anyways, he loved the big g.m. cars of the era, and drove a 1961 Le Sabre 4 dr. h.t., He bought it at 1 yr old, from Larry Nelson Buick, on Woodward Ave, in Royal Oak. Yes. That Woodward Ave.Yes, that Buick saw a lot of drive ins and races. Yes, it did win-some! Newport silver with red/black interior. Nice color combo for the time. With that dynaflow trans, nicknamed the rubberband trans for its propensity to wind up the rpm’s and then launch the car; my older brothers tried in vain to get that 364 2bbl slug to lite e’m up! wouldnt do it, no how! It was a great family cruiser though, and the interior seat materials wore like iron. Truly a thrill ride when a brake line broke, and there was no stoppin the tank. luckily there wasn’t a lot of traffic, and speed was under 45m.p.h. seatbelts and airbags? no way. My older bro’s hammered it through highschool, and the stains from uh, late night carousing all over the wear-like-iron upholstery? but i did get to drive it up and down the drive, crushing model cars under those 8:45 15 tires. in 1971, it was sold for $75. The exhaust fell off as it left. Then, as now, Caveat Emptor .